The Supreme Court, in a badly fractured decision yesterday, largely upheld Tom DeLay's gerrymandering of the Texas Congressional districts. Instead of standing up for a fair electoral landscape, the court produced a ruling that did little to ensure the vibrancy of American democracy, and that itself had an unfortunate whiff of partisanship.
Given the strong negative feelings that voters have about Congress — in a recent Times poll, just 23 percent of those surveyed approved of the job lawmakers were doing — it is startling how few races are expected to be competitive this fall. This is largely because of increasingly sophisticated partisan gerrymandering that uses high-powered computers to draw lines that in many cases make voters all but irrelevant.
That's me, irrelevant, white, democratic voter. Where is my equal protection?
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that mandates fair election maps and mandates protection of voter rights and fair and auditable elections. The court should be embarrassed by their decision yesterday. The decision basically said that extreme gerrymandering for partisan reasons that specifically intends to dilute or erase votes from the opposition is constitutional.
And that is outrageous.
Posts
6 comments:
The decision basically said that extreme gerrymandering for partisan reasons that specifically intends to dilute or erase votes from the opposition is constitutional.
Not really. All it said was that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a state from redistricting anytime it wants. Gerrymandering has long been held to be a problem only when it dilutes minority votes. I don't think Dems count as a minority....even in Texas.
It's pretty damn scary what this will mean going forward -- at least short term. Redistricting every two years?
Long term it could be a net positive. If constant partisan redistricting gets out of hand, most states will probably move towards some kind of nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
Flory, I disagree. The dems lawyers specifically argued that the republican legislature redistricted specifically for partisan purposes only. The dilution of minority votes was a separate argument.
The court rejected the partisan argument.
Again, where's my equal protection under the law? I think gerrymandering is wrong no matter which party does it.
The House doesn't have a say in Amendments, right? 'Cuz if they do, there's just no way.
4lg:
Partisan redistricting might be morally repugnant -- especially when taken to Delay lengths -- but its been going on for as long as there's been a nation. It's just always been the way things work. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent it. For the Supremes to have ruled otherwise would have been judicial activism writ large.
If its a problem -- and I agree it is -- it needs to be part of a package of electoral reforms written into the Constitution... including getting rid of the electoral college and doing something about campaign finance...and auditable voting records.
Flory, do you know what is the basis for ruling that redistricting *is* a problem when "it dilutes minority votes?" And I gather that only refers to racial minority(?) I am guessing that it only would have been legally viewed as a problem since maybe mid-20th century. So if legal opinion evolved on that issue, is there any hope that it could also evolve to recognize that continual redistricting, especially with current technology, for the purpose of eliminating opposition parties, is not compatible with the democratic process.
This all seems like another one of those things that, even if it has been going on at a certain level since time immemorial, now in the last few years it has gotten totally out of control. Yet another blow against what I hoped my country was about. Very discouraging.
If its a problem -- and I agree it is -- it needs to be part of a package of electoral reforms written into the Constitution... including getting rid of the electoral college and doing something about campaign finance...and auditable voting records.
Well, yes. Just because it's been going on from time immemorial doesn't make it right, OR compatible with the democratic process.
Now I know I'm not a lawyer, but Bush v. Gore got into the equal protection argument and the court has said that too much partisan gerrymandering is impermissable, but they've never identified how much is too much. This decision seems to set the bar really, really high for how much is too much.
And that ain't right, no matter WHICH party does it.
Tom Delay said on Wednesday something to the effect that, "see, if you do these things right, you can get the RIGHT kind of representation."
Right for who? Not right for me, that's for goddamned sure.
Post a Comment